Now opposing criminal background checks may seem baffling, but that would be because you are wrongly assuming that the point is to reduce gun violence. Once you consider that LaPierre's sole motive is to ensure that his gun manufacturer masters maximize sales of their product, it makes sense.

Take any proposition LaPierre and the NRA make, strip it of any moral context whatsoever, run it through this formula, and you will see it fits 100% of the time.

For those claiming registration wouldn't work because no one would comply, establish tort and/or criminal liability for someone who transfers a gun without registering the transfer if that gun is later used in a crime.

FTFA: "When it comes to the issue of background checks, let's be honest - background checks will never be 'universal' - because criminals will never submit to them," LaPierre's testimony reads.

Criminals have two main methods of acquiring guns. The first is they purchase privately from an unaware, but law-abiding citizen. The second is they purchase their gun from another criminal. Universal background checks will have a big, direct impact on the first method. Universal background checks will also have lasting, indirect effects on the second method to due attrition of guns flowing into the criminal black market. Guns flow out of the criminal black market normally either by being sold back to a private, law-abiding citizen, by being police confiscation, or being dumped in the trash to hide the evidence of a crime. Universal background checks means that there will be fewer ways for guns to enter the black market, meaning fewer guns to go around for those who deserve them the least.

> why bother having police? we'll never catch all the criminals> why bother having firemen? houses are still going to burn down> why bother having laws? people are just going to do what they want anyway> why bother having doctors? people are still going to get sick and die> why bother having taxes? people will just cheat on them> why bother teachingn students to spell? they'll just ignore it when they text> why bother feeding your kids? they'll just be hungry again tomorrow

His cunning plan, I don't think he's thought it all the way through...

Eshman:In a condescending way at that. Jesus, you guys can't tone down the derp for one second to have a rational conversation, can you?

Quick to anger

Frequently lacking in basic facts

Openly abusive to opposing viewpoints.

Hell...there's a guy in this very thread (likely his 400th or so post in the past 15 days defending his law-abiding gun ownership) declaring that if the law were changed requiring some sort of registration he would deliberately disobey that law.

These seem to be common traits among many (most?) of Fark's gun lovers and passionate defenders of their "rights". Funny that these are the very people who insist that they are responsible law abiding gun owners when the obvious reality is that they are angry low-average men who have issues with authority -- the very people who you wouldn't want to be armed and whose vehement and passionate defences of their weapons fetishes are about as helpful to their cause as Mr LaPierre's myopic mumblings.

Ask yourself: "do criminal background checks increase or decrease the number of guns sold in America?" Well clearly, if some people can't buy guns because they are convicted violent felons, that means less guns sold.

Also, more felons with guns means a climate of fear that will also cause law abiding citizens to buy guns against the criminal element who are now heavily armed, which means even more guns sold.

So I think its easy to see that screening out criminals from being able to buy guns reduces profit and is therefore a Bad Thing. So criminal background checks must be opposed.

Firethorn:You need to double check your stats. Right now the #1 source for guns is apparently straw purchase - where a non-convicted criminal legally buys the firearms and provides them to the criminals.

This is a great argument for requiring gun owners to register their guns.

For those claiming registration wouldn't work because no one would comply, establish tort and/or criminal liability for someone who transfers a gun without registering the transfer if that gun is later used in a crime.

Problem solved.

Ok, so...the federal government says I have to register my firearms. I don't. I sell one to you. You murder someone with the weapon. How exactly does that come back to me for prosecution? You tell the cops I sold you the weapon? How do you prove it? What ties me to this other than the word of a guy on the hook for murder?

No, the fire arm is registered to you. You sell it to me, and when you do, you notify the state of the sale. Your failure to do so is a crime if the gun later turns up as a murder weapon. Also, the victims can sue you for wrongful death.

Of course, if the gun is stolen, a police report showing you reported the gun as stolen would be an absolute defense.

Ow! That was my feelings!:Again, you are talking about registration here. So, it's not just the background check that you want, it's also the firearm registration that comes with it. I explained upthread how to handle these checks without registration, which I would support. Registration? no farking way.

You wouldn't believe the training I have to undergo and the forms I have to fill out to use tiny amounts of radioactivity. You know why I have to do it? Because radioactivity might hurt people! Whoa.

Saiga410:He does have a very good point. He is not against the background checks mandated by FFL purchases... his is one of being against P2P needing background checks. The added regulatory hurdle is more intrusive than the benefit of removing the small amount of people who may get caught because criminals will still buy around this with their standard end arounds they use now which is not the traditional p2p. They will use their strawmen and universal background will not stop that.

vicioushobbit:Guess we should all stop using condoms, too, because those little spermie buggers that want to get through, they're not going to submit to the latex. So why bother with the whole thing, anyway?

And don't bother frisking me at the airport, if a terrorist REALLY wants to get the bomb on the plane, he's going to.

/insert more sarcastic examples//like guns, detest the NRA

Why prohibit bombs, guns and knives (and water bottles) on airplanes if attempting to take them through security was a felony punishable by 10 years in prison but 99.95% of those attempting it were sent on their way without even an arrest on their record?

What is the point in a law that is never enforced? Or used like the Sullivan Act was originally, as a political weapon?Either enforce the law or take it off the books. Doing otherwise only reinforces the fact that the Department of Just Us is a farce.

Mike_1962:violentsalvation: "When it comes to the issue of background checks, let's be honest - background checks will never be 'universal' - because criminals will never submit to them," LaPierre's testimony reads.

So where's he wrong? And where did he say to do away with all background checks altogether? Oh wait he isn't, and he didn't. He is asking people like subtard to be realistic with their expectations for gun-violence reduction before knee jerking useless laws into place.

But no, OOGABOOGA NRA HERPADERP! Right, subtard?

Ah, no. He's advancing that as a justification for doing nothing. See the perfect solution fallacy.

Ah, no. He's countering that an excuse to do a certain something is at its heart a solution for nothing. See the politician's fallacy.

I have heard this again and again by the gun nuts "Hey if we pass these laws they will not be 100% effective". Hey, we have rape and murder laws, and we still have rape and murder, so lets get rid of those laws too?

And they get so mad when you point out that their argument is this stupid.

omnibus_necanda_sunt:Dimensio: lennavan: Firethorn: You need to double check your stats. Right now the #1 source for guns is apparently straw purchase - where a non-convicted criminal legally buys the firearms and provides them to the criminals.

This is a great argument for requiring gun owners to register their guns.

I am open to a registration requirement, if the legal requirement includes specific language that mandates the complete destruction of the registry (and any copies) and nullifies the requirement for registration should any legislation that would have the effect of banning from civilian ownership any currently legal civilian firearm model pass both houses of Congress. The clause would also be applicable for any legislation attempting to repeal the clause itself.

What the fark, dude? The registry will just get dumped on WikiLeaks anyway.

Are you worried about the government confiscating your car, via their handy-dandy vehicle registries? No? Then why be worried about guns?

I am aware of no government that has utilized an automobile registry for confiscation. I am aware of multiple governments that have utilized a firearm registry for confiscation.

Bill_Wick's_Friend:I'm pointing and laughing at you and your pathetic guns. Anger? Not hardly. I don't have to live in your miserable backwater.

Yes, you're clearly not angered.

I'm clearly not being sarcastic.

Bill_Wick's_Friend:Oh? Would you like to play some games with statistics about whose citizens get shot a lot more than anyone else in civilized industrialized nations? No, I don't think you want to play that game. The "b-b-b-but Switzerland...!" card is already played and that's about all ya got in your hand. I've put those basic facts into enough threads and watched fetishists like you contort yourself into pretzels to find some way -- ANY way -- to insist that the massively high murder-by-gun rate in the USA has nothing to do with the massive amount of guns owned by simpletons and fetishists and criminals and whackos and that adding more guns into an already saturated nation is the best way to lower the constant carnage.

The murder and violent crime rate was not affected by gun bans in England or Australia. If anything, the violent crime rate rose unexpectantly. America has always had a higher per capita crime rate than England and Australia. So trying to compare directly is specious.

You see, I don't care how someone is killed. I care that they're killed. Gun control advocates want to ban guns first. The affect on crime and murder is a secondary consideration.

Mrbogey:Bill_Wick's_Friend: Eshman: In a condescending way at that. Jesus, you guys can't tone down the derp for one second to have a rational conversation, can you?

Quick to anger

Frequently lacking in basic facts

Openly abusive to opposing viewpoints.

Hell...there's a guy in this very thread (likely his 400th or so post in the past 15 days defending his law-abiding gun ownership) declaring that if the law were changed requiring some sort of registration he would deliberately disobey that law.

These seem to be common traits among many (most?) of Fark's gun lovers and passionate defenders of their "rights". Funny that these are the very people who insist that they are responsible law abiding gun owners when the obvious reality is that they are angry low-average men who have issues with authority -- the very people who you wouldn't want to be armed and whose vehement and passionate defences of their weapons fetishes are about as helpful to their cause as Mr LaPierre's myopic mumblings.

Let's see.. in your post we have-

Quick to anger

Frequently lacking in basic facts

Openly abusive to opposing viewpoints.

Gun control advocates and their boosters just can't help themselves.

Quick to anger: I didn't catch that anger in his post. But then, I'm not a sensitive pansy.

Frequently lacking in basic facts: The only person here lacking basic facts is you. (No really, you've been using sensationalist language in favor of any sort of meaningful facts [hint: calling people "lying scumbags" is subjective])Openly abusive to opposing viewpoints: and I quote: "All gun control advocates are lying scumbags".

Poor little guy. It'll get better *pats head*. Those meanie government thugs will get what's coming to them thanks to valiant patriots like you.

vicioushobbit:Guess we should all stop using condoms, too, because those little spermie buggers that want to get through, they're not going to submit to the latex. So why bother with the whole thing, anyway?

And don't bother frisking me at the airport, if a terrorist REALLY wants to get the bomb on the plane, he's going to.

/insert more sarcastic examples//like guns, detest the NRA

Murder laws don't stop all murders, so we should legalize murder. The drop in the crime rate from no murders being a cime would be a bonus.

spongeboob:Ow! That was my feelings!: spongeboob: Ow! That was my feelings!: vernonFL: Ow! That was my feelings!: How do you enforce universal background checks?

Well, for one thing, you make sure all gun sellers have licenses, and you make them keep records and you audit them to see who they are selling to.

Right now we don't even do that.

We are talking about two private individuals conducting a transaction. So, every gun owner needs a sellers license?

No but how about every seller?

If you can't sell alcohol, tobacco, prescription medications, etc without a licenses why should you be able to sell firearms?

We are just gonna have to agree to disagree on this one, I know, but we are debating a resale of a legal product here. I have sold a grand total of 2 firearms in 20 years of adult gun ownership. It would be an excessive burden on me to have to have a "dealers license" for such a rare event. Background check, ok, dealer's license, no.

Okay instead of having to maintain a license in order to sale a firearm how about if you sale a firearm you simply go with the purchaser to a licensed firearms dealer and fill out the appropriate forms?

I know this is probably too onerous, I mean the NRA is against making it mandatory in PA to report stolen firearms.

Eshman:Mrbogey: Eshman: Can one of our conservative friends please explain something to me? Like I'm 5 years old please:

How is creating a registry of gun ownership any more intrusive/ineefective than the system we currently have in place for automobiles?

Well any explanation would be overly simplistic but here you go little kid-

"The people who demand a gun registry are liars who want to, by and large, confiscate guns. So a registry is just a first step towards that. There hasn't been any movement to ban cars so it's hard to compare the two."

Most gun control legislation gets friction because gun control advocates tend to be liars who just want to shift the Overton window.

So instead of explaining to me why creating a registry of guns is more of an infringement of your fetish rights than registering your automobile, you fall back on hyperbole. ... In a condescending way at that. Jesus, you guys can't tone down the derp for one second to have a rational conversation, can you?

Mrbogey:Eshman: Can one of our conservative friends please explain something to me? Like I'm 5 years old please:

How is creating a registry of gun ownership any more intrusive/ineefective than the system we currently have in place for automobiles?

Well any explanation would be overly simplistic but here you go little kid-

"The people who demand a gun registry are liars who want to, by and large, confiscate guns. So a registry is just a first step towards that. There hasn't been any movement to ban cars so it's hard to compare the two."

Most gun control legislation gets friction because gun control advocates tend to be liars who just want to shift the Overton window.

So instead of explaining to me why creating a registry of guns is more of an infringement of your fetish rights than registering your automobile, you fall back on hyperbole. ... In a condescending way at that. Jesus, you guys can't tone down the derp for one second to have a rational conversation, can you?

Wow, so you'd break that law too. Holy fark I had no idea how much gun owners loved their guns. I mean, you don't hear people biatching about how you have to register your newborn baby with the government nearly as much as you do about guns. And I would argue people are more important than guns. It seems you might disagree with that.

Ow! That was my feelings!:I explained upthread how to handle these checks without registration, which I would support. Registration? no farking way.

No you didn't. You asked how a universal background check would be enforced. Registration/Tort Liability would be a start. You suggested you don't need to register a car if you only keep it on your property--attempting an analogy to a firearm. I told you even if that was true that no one in hell would buy a gun and NOT TAKE IT OFF YOUR PROPERTY BECAUSE THAT'S COMPLETE IDIOCY. A transfer of ownership includes a transfer to a new space. I'm not going to move in to your spare bedroom to access the gun I just bought from you anymore than I would do that with a car I bought from you. I don't care how you 'feel' about registration--you need to provide some objective reason that stands up better than "I'll keep the firearm/car I sold you at my place so we don't have to register it." The Founders and their state governments registered firearms. There is no reason I can think of to not do it now.

Dave Lister:MyEnamine: In apposing background checks the NRA is showing their hand. This is clear proof that they only care about gun sales. They don't care about gun owners, only the manufacturers.

I have never understood this argument. Used firearms are transacted at many times the rate of new ones (no I don't have evidence, simply an observation), but the NRA's only purpose is to sell new ones.

None of my firearms were purchased new, to the direct benefit of no manufacturer.

gilgigamesh:Ow! That was my feelings!: Somacandra: Ow! That was my feelings!: We are talking about two private individuals conducting a transaction. So, every gun owner needs a sellers license?

I bought a car in cash from a colleague privately awhile back. We went to the local DMV and did the whole title transfer thing, brought in the state paperwork and paid a few bucks for the title and transfer. Not really a hassle, and it was good to have a public record to protect both him and I. Even if a parent gives their car to their kid, there is a title transfer involved whether or not the fee was waved. Don't see why anyone should have a problem.

Again, you are talking about registration here. So, it's not just the background check that you want, it's also the firearm registration that comes with it. I explained upthread how to handle these checks without registration, which I would support. Registration? no farking way.

You aren't required to have a license plate on a car that doesn't travel on a public road, but if you own a car it is registered to you with the state.

Shaggy_C:Funny, this same "banning things doesn't work" argument gets used time and time again in marijuana legalization threads. I guess it all depends on whether the potentially banned item is near and dear to your heart or not, eh?

How do you people manage to get "universal background checks" and "ban" confused every day?

Shhhhh... everyone calm down and just watch the NRA. They're finally coming out and publicly making big bold comments for everyone to see.Just like their GOP friends who are leading the charge! Give then a little while and they'll spin into the derposphere soon enough too.

Friend of my dad once got pulled over, started complaining to the cop about how there were other drivers speeding and while he was the one who got pulled over. Cop replied "Ever been fishing?" Guy said yes, cop said, "You catch all the fish?"

Ow! That was my feelings!:Only if I take said vehicle on a public roadway. I don't need to register it if it never leaves my property.

So you're suggesting that you shouldn't have to have a registration to transfer a firearm--so long as it stays on your property? That's not terribly useful to me. If I buy a pistol from you I'd usually like to take it back to my property rather than keep it at yours. Like a car.

/Funny. I get a bill each year for my vehicle registration whether or not I take in on a public roadway. Oh well.

Ow! That was my feelings!:We are talking about two private individuals conducting a transaction. So, every gun owner needs a sellers license?

I bought a car in cash from a colleague privately awhile back. We went to the local DMV and did the whole title transfer thing, brought in the state paperwork and paid a few bucks for the title and transfer. Not really a hassle, and it was good to have a public record to protect both him and I. Even if a parent gives their car to their kid, there is a title transfer involved whether or not the fee was waved. Don't see why anyone should have a problem.

violentsalvation:"When it comes to the issue of background checks, let's be honest - background checks will never be 'universal' - because criminals will never submit to them," LaPierre's testimony reads.

So where's he wrong? And where did he say to do away with all background checks altogether? Oh wait he isn't, and he didn't. He is asking people like subtard to be realistic with their expectations for gun-violence reduction before knee jerking useless laws into place.

But no, OOGABOOGA NRA HERPADERP! Right, subtard?

The only real answer to gun violence is killing gun owners, that's the NRA position.

Shaggy_C:Funny, this same "banning things doesn't work" argument gets used time and time again in marijuana legalization threads. I guess it all depends on whether the potentially banned item is near and dear to your heart or not, eh?

You're so right. That's why all those senseless marijuana deaths will continue.

Your gonna be relying on individual's 'voluntarily' submitting to the system. I would suggest to anyone that supports this idea to make the checks as easy, simple, and cheap as possible.An example:I wish to sell a firearm to John Doe. I pick up the phone and call the number, give to the Cop on the other end his name, dob, ssn, whatever. The Cop checks John Doe, finds nothing, says "OK to sell"

In my experience, background checks usually take all of fifteen minutes, max. It would require a little more money, but I imagine we could make that process available to private sellers as well, as you seem to be suggesting.

LaPierre: " Nor do we believe the government should dictate what we can lawfully own and use to protect our families."

I cannot think of a single person I know who uses a gun to protect their family. But I do know many people who own guns that use them as a penile perception embellishment device. This includes the wimmin.

Darth_Lukecash:Ow! That was my feelings!: vernonFL: Ow! That was my feelings!: How do you enforce universal background checks?

Well, for one thing, you make sure all gun sellers have licenses, and you make them keep records and you audit them to see who they are selling to.

Right now we don't even do that.

We are talking about two private individuals conducting a transaction. So, every gun owner needs a sellers license?

There should be a fee that the buyer pays for the government to run a background check.

Regulation on a dangerous equipment should not be considered an infringement.

Your gonna be relying on individual's 'voluntarily' submitting to the system. I would suggest to anyone that supports this idea to make the checks as easy, simple, and cheap as possible.An example:I wish to sell a firearm to John Doe. I pick up the phone and call the number, give to the Cop on the other end his name, dob, ssn, whatever. The Cop checks John Doe, finds nothing, says "OK to sell"

THAT'S IT!!!! That is all you need. Trying to turn universal checks into a registration scheme is gonna guarantee low compliance. In fact, that might be the poison pill that kills it in Congress.

Saiga410:justtray: stoli n coke: Saiga410: He does have a very good point. He is not against the background checks mandated by FFL purchases... his is one of being against P2P needing background checks. The added regulatory hurdle is more intrusive than the benefit of removing the small amount of people who may get caught because criminals will still buy around this with their standard end arounds they use now which is not the traditional p2p. They will use their strawmen and universal background will not stop that.

"If they've done nothing wrong, they've got nothing to worry about."

-Conservatives before 1/20/09

I will guess that you bother were against such reasoning back before 09 so you will join me in giving the govt the finger when they want to enter into a privacy issue.

The perfect solution fallacy is an informal fallacy that occurs when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists and/or that a solution should be rejected because some part of the problem would still exist after it were implemented. This is a classic example of black and white thinking, in which a person fails to see the complex interplay between multiple component elements of a situation or problem, and as a result, reduces complex problems to a pair of binary extremes.

It is common for arguments which commit this fallacy to omit any specifics about exactly how, or how badly, a proposed solution is claimed to fall short of acceptability, expressing the rejection in vague terms only. Alternatively, it may be combined with the fallacy of misleading vividness, when a specific example of a solution's failure is described in emotionally powerful detail but base rates are ignored (see availability heuristic).

The fallacy is a type of false dilemma.

Examples

Posit (fallacious)These anti-drunk driving ad campaigns are not going to work. People are still going to drink and drive no matter what.

RebuttalComplete eradication of drunk driving is not the expected outcome. The goal is reduction.

Posit (fallacious)Seat belts are a bad idea. People are still going to die in car crashes.

RebuttalWhile seat belts cannot make driving 100% safe, they do reduce one's likelihood of dying in a car crash.

If someone can make a case that the additional checks would actually make a difference, I'd support it. As it is, it's just a feel good, emotional knee jerk response. Crims get guns just as easily as they get illegal drugs. Making non-criminal citizens jump through more hoops accomplishes nothing.

Making you sign a form for cold medicine has made ZERO difference in stopping meth abuse. Yet we do it. It's pointless.

Saiga410:He does have a very good point. He is not against the background checks mandated by FFL purchases... his is one of being against P2P needing background checks. The added regulatory hurdle is more intrusive than the benefit of removing the small amount of people who may get caught because criminals will still buy around this with their standard end arounds they use now which is not the traditional p2p. They will use their strawmen and universal background will not stop that.

The point it will tighten the legal loophole. One of the things law officials noted, was that criminals were purchasing guns via private sales/gun shows. By requiring all gun sales to be registered/background checked, it will limit the options.

He does have a very good point. He is not against the background checks mandated by FFL purchases... his is one of being against P2P needing background checks. The added regulatory hurdle is more intrusive than the benefit of removing the small amount of people who may get caught because criminals will still buy around this with their standard end arounds they use now which is not the traditional p2p. They will use their strawmen and universal background will not stop that.

we can't catch every cannabis user, so why bother keeping it illegal at all?we can't stop every drunk driver, so why bother with DUI checkpoints at all?we can't stop every terrorist, so why bother with TSA checkpoints at all?we can't stop every file trader, so why bother trying to stop it at all?we can't stop every abortion, so why stop it at all?we can't stop every welfare cheater, so why bother screening at all?we can't stop every illegal from crossing the border, so why bother at all?

When the Russians and Cubans invade America, they'll pull the gun owner permit files and know who has guns that need taking away! Has no one watched Red Dawn! I feel like I'm taking crazy pills! -Wayne LaPierre